Sarah Palin and gays, and the RNC ticket

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: jonks
While this should almost always be a winning issue for Democrats, I feel bringing it up always reveals the hypocrisy inherent in their position. Dem pols feel gays shouldn't be discriminated against, but they doublespeak their way into arguing against gay marriage because they know it's a losing political issue outside of liberal states, which is the overwhelming majority of them.

The gay issue highlights the negative stereotype of Dems as the cowards who lack the courage of their convictions.

Dems whine about discrimination against gays, yet pioneer "don't ask, don't tell," and are against gay marriage.

All the gay issue does is illustrate how the Dems are "less bigoted overall" than the Reps, who want to actively discriminate, pass Constitutional amendments against gays, prevent equal benefits to lifelong partners, etc. I don't think being "less racist" is something to brag about, and neither is "less homophobic."

I agree with you that many democrats fall short on the moral position on this issue.

But I'd say that you need to think about the level of condemntation you express. Ultimately, winning elections does matter, and if you have a view the majority disagrees with, you have to weigh the choice of letting an opponent get power on all the other issues; ultimately, politics is about representing the people, not only telling them you're right and they're wrong.

There are no small number of tragedies of politicians doing the 'right thing' on one issue, but paying the price. Take Pat Brown, who was a very popular governor of California in its 'golden age' - but lost an election to Ronald Reagan because he stood against capital punishment, leading Reagan to a launching pad for the presidency filled with death squads, the war on the middle class, and the beginning of huge national debt.

On the other hand, JFK wrote 'Profiles in Courage' about politicans who did stand up on such issues, and there's a case for that.

Being 'less homophobic' may not be much to brag about, but the Republicans who pander to the bigots are, of course worse - you might mistake them for 'standing strong' on the wrong side of the issue, but on the other hand, look at how the segregationist politicians crumbled when it went our of fashion - they were panderers, pure and simple. You can hear some of them practically admitting as much as they wheel and deal with the Kennedys on the secret recordings in civil rights crises, how they have to 'look' like they're defying the government for political reasons, but of course are willing to work out a secret plan to let the federal government win.

Politics has messy compromises, and you may be too demanding of a position that could let the bigots get power.

Unfortunately, it does take time to get change like this accepted. You can look back to the 70's and see a long road they've travelled in slowly gaining public acceptance. Remember it was only in 2003 that the last *criminal* laws against homosexuality were removed - not by the public progressing, but by the Supreme Court.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21

Again, you are ultimately saying that any gay person who renounces his or her homosexuality is either lying or deluding him or herself.

That seems blindly idealistic. Evidence against your claim is in plain sight, and you dismiss them as being dishonest and deluded.

No wonder the definition of bigotry was cited earlier in this thread.

I'm saying that the issues of human sexuality involed are more complicated than is suited to a debate here, and you should do some research before you spout your opinion.

As I said, human sexuality is complex and there are a variety of scenarios. Many parts of sexual attraction are environmental - take a look at fetishes. Why don't you explain to me why the members of NAAFA are so often fixated on fat partners for sexual attraction? Why don't you explain the phenomenen of transvestites? Of transsexuals? I can go on.

You're putting things in extremely misleading boxes from oversimplification.

The point I've made all along and I make now, is what I said, that there is a naturally occuring condition of homosexuality. Not every person who has any same-sex experience has that exact same condition - there are a lot of situations. But that condition does exist, and they deserve equality.

You want to simplify every person who somehow identifies they're gay like they're the same, and every experience in the 'conversion therapy' like it is.

We're not talking about an infection and an antibiotic here.

You seem to be trying to imply that saying a lot of the people in those programs are deluding themselves is somehow condescending and ignoring the 'evidence in plain sight', but in fact, there's good reason to say just that - and you need only ask many of them later, who will tell you just that. But you won't, because actual researc is too much hassle, it seems. But common sense would suggest that people who *desperately* want not to be gay, who think that they're the same as a murderer or rapist for feeling gay attractions, might just get a bit warped in that program. But you don't seem too interested in the actual research.

What's *your* point in trying to make such an issue of the variety of situations - are you trying to say that every gay person is deluded and just needs a bit of 'therapy' to 'fix' them? No, you're trying to take a small percent of cases that can be different than gays generally, and pretend that it 'disproves homosexuality as a natural condition'. It's dishonest and harmful.

Okay, I'm going to switch gears for a second. I want to ask a question.

Is there a way to quantifiably define that a man is gay? Say by brainwaves or DNA or whatnot? Is a gay man only defined by his actions, namely the type of sex he engages in?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Craig234

Yes, I'm bigoted against bigots, and I'll defend that bigotry. You can't defend yours.

Wait, you're bigoted against yourself?

Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction?

Well, I was being cute but too loose with the definition.

Since the definition of bigotry is basically an unjustified/irrational discrimination or hostility, being 'bigoted against bigots' isn't really bigotry, since it has justification.

You were trying to be cute in saying that bigotry against gays, and opposing that bigotry against gays, are equally 'bigotry'. They're not.

One is unjustified discrimination, the other is opposing unjustified discrimination.
 

SilthDraeth

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2003
2,635
0
71
Originally posted by: Craig234
There have been many Palin thread, and I'm starting another - because I think this issue is far more than big enough for a thread.

Simply put, IMO, gays are the last big civil rights issue our nation has yet to address, the last case where discriminating for no good reason still has very wide support.

We've stopped denying women the vote, enslaving blacks or having 'separate but equal' denial of equal access, and made partial progress on gay rights.

But gay rights are still where the other groups discriminated against many decades ago were then. The basic fact that generally people do not choose to be gay - putting aside the issue of the injustice of discrimination even if they did choose it - is still not recognized by a large part of the population, is a major situation of ignorance - and it cause a lot of side effects, from the smug discrimnation on marriage to a fringe who would criminalize it.

Just as we were right to say women have a right in the workplace and the ballot box, just as we were right to say that blacks cannot be enslaved and have the right to enjoy any public facility as others, we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies, harmless, leaving them with needs like anyone else for relationships, and dignity.

We need to recognize that all of the above, including gay marital discrimination, are *nothing* but bigotry, and immoral, and correct the laws.

The Republicans, after VP Cheney, with a gay daughter, did not agree with the amendment to ban gay marriage, are taking a step back (unbelievable as that is to do worse than Cheney), and have nominated an ultra right-wing extremist who denies the science on gays, lies about the nature of their homosexuality, and supports legal discrimination. This is no more unacceptable than going back on the rights for women, minorities, or others.

This is not one side of a reasonable difference, it is outrageous bigotry, like David Duke.

And McCain by appointing her, 'thoroughly vetted', silent on her position on this, is condoning her bigotry and empowering it.

It's completely despicable, immoral, and unacceptable for a Presidential ticket.

Larry is that you?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21
[Okay, I'm going to switch gears for a second. I want to ask a question.

Is there a way to quantifiably define that a man is gay? Say by brainwaves or DNA or whatnot? Is a gay man only defined by his actions, namely the type of sex he engages in?

Sorry to repeat the phrase so much, but it's the answer, human sexuality is complex.

The short answer is "I don'thave all the info", and "sort of".

There isn't a black and white 'test' I know of that confirms sexual orientation, which consists of many factors.

But there *are* some biological correlations that are very high; as I said earlier, people who know what to look for can predict homosexuality in 5 year olds or earlier with high accuracy. It's been years since I've looked at the info, so I'm not sure what the current state is.

One of the odd correlations is that a statistically significant correlation, but not by any means 100%, with male gays is their ring finger reaches above their middle finger, IIRC.

Another oddity: for male homosexuals (and I've long felt there is some basic difference in male and female homosexuality), birth order is a factor.

IIRC, each son is 20% more likely to be gay than the previous.

One other documented difference - gay men perform worse on cognitive testing for spatial rotation.

But at the end of the day, on your question, while there are many gay men who are clearly oriented to attraction to only the same gender, I know of no biological 'test' for it.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth

Larry is that you?

I suspect there's a high probability this post is idiotic; who is Larry?

Larry Craig is my best guess... not that it would make much sense.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21
[Okay, I'm going to switch gears for a second. I want to ask a question.

Is there a way to quantifiably define that a man is gay? Say by brainwaves or DNA or whatnot? Is a gay man only defined by his actions, namely the type of sex he engages in?

Sorry to repeat the phrase so much, but it's the answer, human sexuality is complex.

The short answer is "I don'thave all the info", and "sort of".

There isn't a black and white 'test' I know of that confirms sexual orientation, which consists of many factors.

But there *are* some biological correlations that are very high; as I said earlier, people who know what to look for can predict homosexuality in 5 year olds or earlier with high accuracy. It's been years since I've looked at the info, so I'm not sure what the current state is.

One of the odd correlations is that a statistically significant correlation, but not by any means 100%, with male gays is their ring finger reaches above their middle finger, IIRC.

Another oddity: for male homosexuals (and I've long felt there is some basic difference in male and female homosexuality), birth order is a factor.

IIRC, each son is 20% more likely to be gay than the previous.


One other documented difference - gay men perform worse on cognitive testing for spatial rotation.

But at the end of the day, on your question, while there are many gay men who are clearly oriented to attraction to only the same gender, I know of no biological 'test' for it.

The Science of Gaydar
http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,888
0
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

The flaw there is that anal sex still works pretty well for dudes, by "natural design". Is there any other way to get to the prostate?

the flaw is that living things weren't "designed" by anyone for anything.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21

Again, you are ultimately saying that any gay person who renounces his or her homosexuality is either lying or deluding him or herself.

That seems blindly idealistic. Evidence against your claim is in plain sight, and you dismiss them as being dishonest and deluded.

No wonder the definition of bigotry was cited earlier in this thread.

I'm saying that the issues of human sexuality involed are more complicated than is suited to a debate here, and you should do some research before you spout your opinion.

As I said, human sexuality is complex and there are a variety of scenarios. Many parts of sexual attraction are environmental - take a look at fetishes. Why don't you explain to me why the members of NAAFA are so often fixated on fat partners for sexual attraction? Why don't you explain the phenomenen of transvestites? Of transsexuals? I can go on.

You're putting things in extremely misleading boxes from oversimplification.

The point I've made all along and I make now, is what I said, that there is a naturally occuring condition of homosexuality. Not every person who has any same-sex experience has that exact same condition - there are a lot of situations. But that condition does exist, and they deserve equality.

You want to simplify every person who somehow identifies they're gay like they're the same, and every experience in the 'conversion therapy' like it is.

We're not talking about an infection and an antibiotic here.

You seem to be trying to imply that saying a lot of the people in those programs are deluding themselves is somehow condescending and ignoring the 'evidence in plain sight', but in fact, there's good reason to say just that - and you need only ask many of them later, who will tell you just that. But you won't, because actual researc is too much hassle, it seems. But common sense would suggest that people who *desperately* want not to be gay, who think that they're the same as a murderer or rapist for feeling gay attractions, might just get a bit warped in that program. But you don't seem too interested in the actual research.

What's *your* point in trying to make such an issue of the variety of situations - are you trying to say that every gay person is deluded and just needs a bit of 'therapy' to 'fix' them? No, you're trying to take a small percent of cases that can be different than gays generally, and pretend that it 'disproves homosexuality as a natural condition'. It's dishonest and harmful.

Okay, I'm going to switch gears for a second. I want to ask a question.

Is there a way to quantifiably define that a man is gay? Say by brainwaves or DNA or whatnot? Is a gay man only defined by his actions, namely the type of sex he engages in?

Yea, until I see evidence of a gene that causes someone to be gay, I'm going to say its either all in their head, or a combination of maybe a man not having much testosterone, being raised in a weird environment, or maybe having estrogen or something.. and vice versa for women.

I dont know.

All I know is that Men, in correct form, were designed to be attracted to women and vice versa. Any other logic is twisted in my mind. Penis+Vagina=Life

Also, in regards to marriage:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

I liked the pyschology today article btw. However, most of what they discuss today I would call a Union. By definition in todays world, marriage=man+woman. I don't think we should have to start changing definitions just so some group can feel better about themselves. They should be happy with civil unions and the bennies.

Gay people will generally be looked down upon by society until the end of time. At least I predict so.

 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

The flaw there is that anal sex still works pretty well for dudes, by "natural design". Is there any other way to get to the prostate?

the flaw is that living things weren't "designed" by anyone for anything.

you're arrogant if you think that. You think all this just happened to be? Get real.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Yea, until I see evidence of a gene that causes someone to be gay, I'm going to say its either all in their head, or a combination of maybe a man not having much testosterone, being raised in a weird environment, or maybe having estrogen or something.. and vice versa for women.

I dont know.

All I know is that Men, in correct form, were designed to be attracted to women and vice versa. Any other logic is twisted in my mind. Penis+Vagina=Life

Also, in regards to marriage:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

I liked the pyschology today article btw. However, most of what they discuss today I would call a Union. By definition in todays world, marriage=man+woman. I don't think we should have to start changing definitions just so some group can feel better about themselves. They should be happy with civil unions and the bennies.

Gay people will generally be looked down upon by society until the end of time. At least I predict so.

But there is significant evidence for a genetic link, why do we have to know the exact gene before you give it credence? You know we don't even know the means by which gravity works, but I don't think you'll see too many people saying they need to see the graviton before they believe it.

 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

The flaw there is that anal sex still works pretty well for dudes, by "natural design". Is there any other way to get to the prostate?

the flaw is that living things weren't "designed" by anyone for anything.

you're arrogant if you think that. You think all this just happened to be? Get real.

Why, then, does stimulation of the prostate provide so much pleasure? I noticed you dodged that one ;)
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I liked the pyschology today article btw. However, most of what they discuss today I would call a Union. By definition in todays world, marriage=man+woman. I don't think we should have to start changing definitions just so some group can feel better about themselves. They should be happy with civil unions and the bennies.

Gay people will generally be looked down upon by society until the end of time. At least I predict so.

You are a PRIME example of the problem.
A little restructuring:
"I don't think we should have to start changing definitions just so some group can feel better about themselves."
becomes
"I don't think we should start changing definitions just so we can't feel better about ourselves than some group."
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
after the near-silence on the gay thing at the GOP convention, I'm not particularly worried that McCain is going to come from nowhere and support a constitutional ban on gay marriage or something.

McCain won't have my vote as long as he's pro don-t ask/don't tell, but I don't think a McCain presidency would see my rights eroded. he seems content to leave it to the states, which by and large is OK with me.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: jonks
The Science of Gaydar
http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/

There's a lot of great info in that article.

One quote:

We?re reaching a consensus on a broad question,? says J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University. Is sexual orientation ?something we?re born with or something we largely acquire through social experience? The answer is clear. It?s something we?re born with.?

And on the genetic question, why it isn't simply an issue of a 'gay gene':

One of the riddles still vexing geneticists is why only 50 percent of gay identical twins share a sexual orientation with their sibling, despite being genetically identical. ?We know from all sorts of research that it?s not your upbringing, not relationship with parents or siblings, not early-childhood sexual experiences and whether you go to a Catholic school or not,? says Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at UCLA. ?What I believe is that it is the ?epigenetics environment,? meaning the environment on top of our DNA?meaning the way that the gene is regulated. If you have identical twins, the genes are identical, but they are used differently. Every man and every woman has all the genes to make a vagina and womb and penis and testicles. In the same way, arguably, every man and woman has the genetic code for the brain networks that make you attracted to men and to women. You activate one or the other?and if you activate the wrong one, you?re gay.?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Yea, until I see evidence of a gene that causes someone to be gay, I'm going to say its either all in their head, or a combination of maybe a man not having much testosterone, being raised in a weird environment, or maybe having estrogen or something.. and vice versa for women.

Until I see evidence of God I'm going to consider your belief in him delusional and not natural.

That's actually less of a reach than what you posted...
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

The flaw there is that anal sex still works pretty well for dudes, by "natural design". Is there any other way to get to the prostate?

the flaw is that living things weren't "designed" by anyone for anything.

you're arrogant if you think that. You think all this just happened to be? Get real.

Why, then, does stimulation of the prostate provide so much pleasure? I noticed you dodged that one ;)

It's probably so when we take a shit, it feels good. I didn't mean to dodge, I just knee jerked to the quote after that statement.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

The flaw there is that anal sex still works pretty well for dudes, by "natural design". Is there any other way to get to the prostate?

the flaw is that living things weren't "designed" by anyone for anything.

you're arrogant if you think that. You think all this just happened to be? Get real.

"This all just happened to be" is by far the most likely explanation, yes. That's an entirely different discussion though.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Yea, until I see evidence of a gene that causes someone to be gay, I'm going to say its either all in their head, or a combination of maybe a man not having much testosterone, being raised in a weird environment, or maybe having estrogen or something.. and vice versa for women.

That's because you make the mistake of having opinions based on ignorance.

"All in their head" - the science shows you're wrong. Why don't you explain why there's a high correlation of homosexuality between identicial twins *raised apart*?

I dont know.

At least you admit that, after saying that you are going to make claims on the facts based on nothing, and in contradiction to the evidence known to those who get informed.

All I know is that Men, in correct form, were designed to be attracted to women and vice versa. Any other logic is twisted in my mind. Penis+Vagina=Life

And some people are born impotent, some are born blind, so what? That's a reason to *discriminate*, treat as second class, deny civil rights?

I liked the pyschology today article btw. However, most of what they discuss today I would call a Union. By definition in todays world, marriage=man+woman. I don't think we should have to start changing definitions just so some group can feel better about themselves. They should be happy with civil unions and the bennies.

I guess we shouldn't change our bus policies to let blacks sit in the front just to 'feel better about themselves', that we shouldn't change our laws to let blacks eat at any public restaurant just so they can feel better about themselves, that we shouldn't make companies change their policies to pay women equally for equal work just so women can feel better. You're a great example of someone who is so blinded that you have no clue how you are hurting other people - let's put you in the shoes of the discriminated.

Gay people will generally be looked down upon by society until the end of time. At least I predict so.

Well, you are responsible for there being one less person doing so, and you are immoral if you don't. There's absolutely no reason why this discrimination cannot change in society.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Gay people will generally be looked down upon by society until the end of time. At least I predict so.

There have already been several periods in history where homosexuality was not looked down upon by society, so... that's not correct.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Yea, until I see evidence of a gene that causes someone to be gay, I'm going to say its either all in their head, or a combination of maybe a man not having much testosterone, being raised in a weird environment, or maybe having estrogen or something.. and vice versa for women.

Until I see evidence of God I'm going to consider your belief in him delusional and not natural.

That's actually less of a reach than what you posted...

I see evidence of God everywhere.... Earth, the stars, the moon, people, animals, the sky...

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Yea, until I see evidence of a gene that causes someone to be gay, I'm going to say its either all in their head, or a combination of maybe a man not having much testosterone, being raised in a weird environment, or maybe having estrogen or something.. and vice versa for women.

Until I see evidence of God I'm going to consider your belief in him delusional and not natural.

That's actually less of a reach than what you posted...

I see evidence of God everywhere.... Earth, the stars, the moon, people, animals, the sky...

That's funny...I see physics, chemistry, and biology.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Yea, until I see evidence of a gene that causes someone to be gay, I'm going to say its either all in their head, or a combination of maybe a man not having much testosterone, being raised in a weird environment, or maybe having estrogen or something.. and vice versa for women.

Until I see evidence of God I'm going to consider your belief in him delusional and not natural.

That's actually less of a reach than what you posted...

I see evidence of God everywhere.... Earth, the stars, the moon, people, animals, the sky...

Those things you are seeing are evidence of the existence of the earth, the stars, the moon, people, animals, and the sky.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,888
0
0
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I see evidence of God everywhere.... Earth, the stars, the moon, people, animals, the sky...

that's sweet and all, but hardly convincing to anyone who doesn't share your faith.